Orissa Court July 1962 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Sheobux Satyanarayan
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori68
G.K. Misra, J. 1. Defendants are the appellants against the reversing judgment of the learned District Judge of Cuttack decreeing the plaintiffs' claim for Rs. 680/10/- in each of the suits. Second appeal No. 240/60 and Second Appeal No. 241/60 correspond to money suit No. 198/56 and Money Suit No. 197/56 respectively. Facts alleged in both the cases are almost identical. In each case the facts are that the plaintiff booked a consignment of 220 bags of sugar weighing 605 mds.. (each bag weighing 2 maunds 30 seers). One consignment was under Invoice No. 2 R/R No. 124163 dated 5-6-55 and the other was under Invoice No. 3 R/R No. 124154 dated 5-6-55. These consignments were delivered on 18-7-55 though they were to reach Cuttack on 15-6-55. On enquiry the plaintiff came to know that the wagon containing the consignments was misdirected to Kantapukur Station on the Eastern Railway and was detained there for more than a month. The plaintiff suffered loss of Rs. 1512/8/- due to this extraordi...
Padmacharan Mohanty and anr. Vs. Moti Dei and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-24-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori88
ORDERS. Barman, J. 1. These three Civil Revisions arise out of orders made by the trial court which, ultimately resulted in the restoration of Money Suit No. 82 of 1956 in the circumstances hereinafter stated. 2. The matter arose thus: On February 6, 1956 one Binode Behari Sahu filed a suit against the defendants for realisation of house rent in arrear. The said Binode Behari died on September 14, 1956 leaving him surviving the plaintiffs as heirs and representatives (hereinafter referred to as the present plaintiffs). The Court was not informed of the death of the said Binode Behari Sahu until as hereinafter stated. On November 3, 1956, the suit was fixed to be heard and on that date the suit was dismissed for default. On November 23, 1956, the present plaintiffs made an application, stating that the said Binode Behari Sahu had died on September 14, 1956 and that the applicants were his legal representatives and prayed for re-hearing of the suit which was dismissed for default as agai...
State Vs. Tharu
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-20-1962
Reported in: 28(1962)CLT431; 1963CriLJ133
ORDERR.L. Narasimham, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh, in a case under Sections 456 and 354 I.P.C. which ended in discharge in the Court of the S.D.M., Bonal, on 13-1-1962. The opposite party was sent up for trial for having committed house breaking and attempted to outrage the modesty of a married woman during the midnight of 18-7-61. There were several adjournments taken by the C.S.I. for the purpose of supplying copies of necessary police papers, but these' were not supplied. Hence on 13-1-62 the learned Magistrate discharged the accused, but noted in the order-sheet that when the C.S.I. was asked to secure the remaining copies, he expressed his 'helplessness'. The learned Additional District Magistrate has observed that in a case of this type where even after the expiry of 5 1/2 months after the submission of the charge sheet the police would not supply the necessary copies to the accused as required by Section 251-A, (1) Cr.P.C. there w...
Buli Dei Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-1962
Reported in: 28(1962)CLT375; 1963CriLJ470
G.K. Misra, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for life and R.I. for one year respectively, the sentences to run concurrently.2. The prosecution case is that at about midnight on 24-4-61 the appellant murdered deceased Gopi Padhan. Gopi Padhan was the younger brother of Raghu Padhan, the husband of the appellant Buli Dei. The brothers were living separate in separate houses having joint cultivation. Gopi Padhan had a wife Kalika and a concubine Asheli (P. W. 1). On the night of occurrence Asheli slept on the Danda Verandah of Gopi Padhan's house and Gopi Padhan was sleeping with his son Mamdeb aged about 10 years on a khatia in the Danda at a distance of two cubits apart from his own verandah, Chaitan Padhan (P. W. 2) and Narsingh Behera (P. W. 3) are the front-door neighbours of Gopi Padhan. They were sleeping on their own verandahs.At about midnight Asheli made a shriek as her left middle finger was cut by appellant. Soon aft...
Himirika Lokanath and ors. Vs. the State
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-18-1962
Reported in: 28(1962)CLT435; 1964CriLJ114
G.K. Misra, J.1. Criminal Appeal 151/61 has been filed in Court by the 42 accused persons and Criminal Appeal 129/61 has been filed by some of the 42 accused persons through the jail authorities. As there cannot be two appeals by the same accused persons, the case would be considered with reference jot Criminal Appeal 151/61. Any reference to the appeals is to Criminal Appeal 150/61. Mr. Palit for trie appellants, mentions that 7 out of these 42 appellants died in jail. These appellants are appellant 9 (Himirika Kantu), appellant 120 (Himirika Taudu), appellant 30 (Hikoka Kantu), appellant 137 (Persika Koyan), appellant 38 (Himirika Rimaj, appellant 39 (Himirika Sadhu), and appellant 41 (Sarka Arjun). The appeal filed by these seven appellants, who are already dead, abates. It is therefore, necessary to consider the case of the other 35 appellants.2. Appellants 1 to 3 have been convicted Under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and the rest of the appellants have been convicted Under Section 302/14...
Bakreswar Mahadeb and anr. Vs. Brajabandhu Biswal and ors.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jul-02-1962
Reported in: AIR1963Ori127
G.K. Misra, J.1. Defendants 1 and 4 are the appellants against the judgment of the District Judge of Cuttack partly decreeing the plaintiffs' suit.2. The plaintiffs' case is as follows : --Defendant No. 1 Bakreswar Mahadeb is the deity; defendants 2 and 3 are the deity's hereditary marfatdars and defendant No. 4 was appointed as the trustee by the Endowment Commissioner (defendant 5) under section 27 of the Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act, sometime in 1950, and since then defendants 2 and 3 ceased to be the hereditary marfatdars of defendant No. 1. For the legal necessities of the deity. Shiva Raul and Panu Raul, the father of defendant No. 3, the then marfatdars of defendant No. 1, sold a portion of the land comprised in lots 1 and 3 of the schedule attached to the plaint. Lot No. 1 consists of plot No. 1438 with an area of 1.13 acres and plot No. 1900 with an area of 1.02 acres in the village Tulang in Bajiapty Madhyaswatwadhikari Khata No. 432, lot 3 consists of Plot No. 86 wi...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›